Birth Control

[Em_in_FL]

1. Again, that is the crux of the argument. We have already agreed (I think) that you can also alter a series of acts. However, we have not explained how that is NOT a manipulation or alteration, except by Catholic decree, which is entirely circular.

I’ve gotta go cook dinner… but I’ll address this one…
I haven’t spoken on the “series of acts” at all… I’ll point out a quote from HV:

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

And not only HV, but the Catechism touches on this too:

2366
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

What I mean when I say “change definition” is when a statement is made, which to anyone who is not in practice of memorizing HV or other documents, would reasonably mean X. I disagreement ensues, and it is later realized that particular phrase has some artificially limited definition, as decided by the Church. Well, if I had designed the iPad myself, and had detailed knowledge of its workings, you could never pin me on one single fact, no matter how plain. For example, you could jump up and down screaming that the power button is on the top right of the screen. To anyone with half a thought, they would agree. However, I may know that it is not true. In fact, that is the ONSRS or On Screen Software Reset Switch, and and the only true power switch is on the power supply circuit board, but it was removed once the prototype was finalized. See, now I was right. And I didnt redefine a thing. But you and others would cry foul, and quickly tire of the game. Does that make any sense?

These aren’t difficult things to understand. The teachings are in plain English (and translated to every other language in the world). And like your example, I would trust the authority on the subject to speak with the most knowledge… so therefore we turn to the church to speak on the subject of morality. But, being an electrical engineer, I could just as easily have a more technical conversation, but that’s for another thread.

 

[PassingThru]

I’ve gotta go cook dinner… but I’ll address this one…
I haven’t spoken on the “series of acts” at all… I’ll point out a quote from HV:

And not only HV, but the Catechism touches on this too:

I dont even understand what you are even quoting for at this point. Please listen to this line:

We agree that the Church says each and every individual act of sex must be ordered towards life.

We have always agreed, so please, stop beating us over the head.

What you have NOT demonstrated, is how intentionally engaging in a series of acts (NFP) with the same ends is not a violation of the same principles, even if different in form.

Nothing that I can remember is directed towards that. We just keep hearing, ad nausem, that tab A goes into slot B. Great. We get it. No chemicals. No sheep skin. Check.

This is why I asked you at least 3 times if these rules can be violated at a time OUTSIDE of sex. Is there any teaching on this matter? Is it mentioned? I know it doesnt fit your definition exactly. You seem to have trouble answering a question without a quote from your Church, which can be a bit frustrating. Its a common problem.

I really dont understand the hang up with timing, and acts/non acts. Outside of NFP, I dont think you would have a problem.

Example: Sitting on a park bench. Neutral. Bus passing by. Neutral. Kid on bike. Neutral. Sitting while watching as a child approaches a street as a bus is passing and doing nothing, which we just agreed is neutral, is now a moral no-no. Just because the act is neutral is irrelevant, and you would have no trouble agreeing.

From a good side: If your son graduates from college and is trying to get his feet under him. You may agree to have $500 buck a month transferred to his account for the first year to help him along. After the first year, you do nothing, and it has now been two years where you have been helping your son. But you did nothing. Now your act of doing nothing has created a moral positive.

So, NFP, which is an entire series of morally neutral actions (classes, temps, observations, charts, talking, having sex, not having sex, etc) is created with the express purpose of allowing a couple to have sex, over long periods of time, without the worry of pregnancy. No matter how much you convince me that each of these acts is OK (which they are) it does not explain how the bad aspects of ABC do not apply simply due to each part of NFP being a moral neutral. (Having or not having sex only one part of the process, or one part of a series of acts. That is why it is important)

As I listed above, we have no reservations at all looking past the neutral aspects of my other examples. Odd that we get stuck with the example of NFP…

 

[Anna1345]

I’m NOT defending the use of ABC. I’m saying that there either needs to be a factor that clearly distinguishes ABC from NFP (+ abstinence) OR the Church should be consistent in the moral/immoral treatment of NFP & ABC. Without a clearly distinguishing factor, either BOTH NFP and ABC should be immoral, or both moral.

It is possible to make arguments defending the use of ABC (even if immoral.) That IS NOT what is happening here.

There is… Man made things

 

[PassingThru]

These aren’t difficult things to understand. The teachings are in plain English (and translated to every other language in the world). And like your example, I would trust the authority on the subject to speak with the most knowledge… so therefore we turn to the church to speak on the subject of morality. But, being an electrical engineer, I could just as easily have a more technical conversation, but that’s for another thread.

I don’t know if that was sarcasm or not.

For one, if they were easy to understand, you could explain them without quoting long text from HV and others, or require me to be Catholic, and just “accept” it. I mean really. All this time, have you heard me fall back on some Lutheran teaching in order to make a salient point? No. If it makes sense, I do not need to be aligned to the Pope to understand it.

And two, my example was that the expert was being purposefully obtuse in order to avoid dealing with the assertion head on. That means you are purporting to be the expert, but using technical double speak, as it were, to avoid answering the question. Maybe that was not clear…

 

[Vico]

There IS an issue regarding timing in the marital covenent with mutual consent, if the abstinence is based on NFP, since then the INTENT is exactly the same intent as ABC. And we know from Scripture that intent - what is in your heart - is as important as the act itself - for example, Christs comments on adultery.

What you continue to do, Vico, is use circular logic. Its wrong because the church says so. That is NOT an answer because the question being asked is HOW to differentiate between ABC and NFP? If one is moral and the other immoral, there must be a clear-cut reason other than “the Church says so.” God IS a God of reason.

So if the reason is so clear-cut, why don’t you simply state it?

1. Post 728 was corrected to: “I do not call NFP modification, however call it a modification if you want to, it is irrelevant.”
2. The reason that timing is irrelevant is because we already stated that in the case of NFP there exist serious and just reasons to use it.
3. I did clearly state reasons against ABC in post 562.
4. The Church gives us the answer of how to differentiate between birth control methods, through its teaching authority of the ordinary magisterium, manifested by the Holy Spirit. The Reasons

Pope Pius XII in his allucution to midwives, which I posted before, Allocution to midwives:
ATW ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

And Casti Canubii, Pope Pius XI:
CC vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

We must consider “the order which the Creator wishes maintained and the laws which govern it.” … “This order, fixed by the supreme intelligence, is directed to the purpose willed by the Creator. It embraces the exterior work of man and the internal assent of his free will; it implies action and dutiful omission.” CC

Why ABC cannot be used:

1. … First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. CC
2. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. CC

… “every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.” ATW

Why NFP can be used:

“The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.”

Therefore, in summary:

a “the abuse already mentioned, which consists in the perversion of the act itself.” is immoral

b “husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility” because it does not violate the martial contract

c “one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility” violates the marital contract

d “if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.”

 

[PassingThru]

1. Post 728 was corrected to: “I do not call NFP modification, however call it a modification if you want to, it is irrelevant.”
2. The reason that timing is irrelevant is because we already stated that in the case of NFP there exist serious and just reasons to use it.
3. I did clearly state reasons against ABC in post 562.
4. The Church gives us the answer of how to differentiate between birth control methods, through its teaching authority of the ordinary magisterium, manifested by the Holy Spirit. The Reasons

Pope Pius XII in his allucution to midwives, which I posted before, Allocution to midwives:
ATW ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

And Casti Canubii, Pope Pius XI:
CC vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

We must consider “the order which the Creator wishes maintained and the laws which govern it.” … “This order, fixed by the supreme intelligence, is directed to the purpose willed by the Creator. It embraces the exterior work of man and the internal assent of his free will; it implies action and dutiful omission.” CC

Why ABC cannot be used:

1. … First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. CC
2. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. CC

… “every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.” ATW

Why NFP can be used:

“The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.”

Therefore, in summary:

a “the abuse already mentioned, which consists in the perversion of the act itself.” is immoral

b “husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility” because it does not violate the martial contract

c “one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility” violates the marital contract

d “if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.”

Remember the hypothetical person I made up that is obtuse to an extreme in order to avoid a simple issue? This is it. This is guy, looking at a power switch, insisting it is not, in fact, a power switch.

Vico, this does not explain the question.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So, NFP, which is an entire series of morally neutral actions (classes, temps, observations, charts, talking, having sex, not having sex, etc) is created with the express purpose of allowing a couple to have sex, over long periods of time, without the worry of pregnancy. No matter how much you convince me that each of these acts is OK (which they are) it does not explain how the bad aspects of ABC do not apply simply due to each part of NFP being a moral neutral. (Having or not having sex only one part of the process, or one part of a series of acts. That is why it is important)

I think your vision of NFP is actually more complicated than reality. With NFP (my own experience) For the first method I learned on my own with a website and a 15 dollar book. Observations are really simple (just when I use the bathroom) and chart at the end of the day.

As for long periods of time…not really, I might get a few days in the beginning of the cycle…and a few days at the end.

The main “bad part” of abc (my opinion) is not intent (an ABC user might have grave reasons to avoid) We used ABC in the beginning of our marriage. We had serious reasons but at the same time we were ignorant of NFP and probably did not trust it.

The bad part of ABC is that it removes the fertility that would/should be there in order to have a sterilized sex act. Fertility isn’t a disease that you get rid of. I feel using ABC does not respect the God given cycle a woman has, days of fertility, days of infertility.

 

[Vico]

Remember the hypothetical person I made up that is obtuse to an extreme in order to avoid a simple issue? This is it. This is guy, looking at a power switch, insisting it is not, in fact, a power switch.

Vico, this does not explain the question.

No, I don’t remember a hypothetical person. If you want me to understand, then don’t use analogies, just say it clearly.

For example, show me an example sentence in the format your are looking for as an illustration.

 

[PassingThru]

I think your vision of NFP is actually more complicated than reality. With NFP (my own experience) For the first method I learned on my own with a website and a 15 dollar book. Observations are really simple (just when I use the bathroom) and chart at the end of the day.

Well, its odd. When people need it to be lots of things, it can be those things. Learning about your body, bonding with a husband, increase in communication, help with pregnancy, etc etc. Really, you can find many threads where NFP is espoused to be all sorts of things. Yet, when needed, it can also be simple, if that is what is needed to be said. Interesting…

(my point is the same regardless, it is still a series of acts, for everyone)

As for long periods of time…not really, I might get a few days in the beginning of the cycle…and a few days at the end.

My bad. I meant for months or years, not within one cycle. I wasnt clear…

The bad part of ABC is that it removes the fertility that would/should be there in order to have a sterilized sex act. Fertility isn’t a disease that you get rid of. I feel using ABC does not respect the God given cycle a woman has, days of fertility, days of infertility.

Well, it sounds like NFP works for you, which is the whole point, right? I also don’t think its a disease. You look at ABC as getting rid of it. OK. Thats fair. NFP would be a quarantine.

 

[PassingThru]

No, I don’t remember a hypothetical person. If you want me to understand, then don’t use analogies, just say it clearly.

For example, show me an example sentence in the format your are looking for as an illustration.

Sorry Vico, was a bit uncalled for on my part.

In the post right above yours I had made the analogy.

I know your heart is in the right place, and you try to answer the questions. I read your response to what I think is a straight forward question. I just have no idea what your point is.

It reads like a list of things the Church says, but no mention of why. The best I get is “because the Church says so”. Its nice, but not a reason.

 

[Vico]

Sorry Vico, was a bit uncalled for on my part.

In the post right above yours I had made the analogy.

I know your heart is in the right place, and you try to answer the questions. I read your response to what I think is a straight forward question. I just have no idea what your point is.

It reads like a list of things the Church says, but no mention of why. The best I get is “because the Church says so”. Its nice, but not a reason.

So you really did not read it and digest it then. So you could not relay to another person what the reasoning that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII gave?

 

[PassingThru]

So you really did not read it and digest it then. So you could not relay to another person what the reasoning that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII gave?

Hold on there turbo.

I have read some of the second post previously. I did not read the first.

Im sorry, but I can not wade through 30-40 pages to find your point. Thats not a fair request.

If I made an assertion about finance, or technology, I would not reference a 10Q or spec sheet, I would explain what my point or reasoning is.

Now, from the parts you did quote in your post, you are correct, I could NOT explain the difference between NFP and ABC, and why one is good, and one is bad.

For example, the points you made about ABC are as follows (my summary)

1 You teach your kids that ABC is OK. This is not an argument.
2 Its against nature, and sex is for producing children. This is not an argument. Nor does it differentiate NFP from ABC. Nature arguments are silly things for all involved.
3 States ABC is immoral. Again, completely circular, no support given.

The one paragraph about NFP is a statement so large it collapses in on itself. What is the point of that run on?

Can you, in your own words, answer the question? Honestly, new rule. No more links to dozens of pages and copy-paste of something from an allucution. Just explain, in your words, the very simple question being asked.

(I remember asking the same thing to you maybe a year ago. I don’t think you were able to verbalize your thoughts without the quotes. Maybe I am mis-remembering…)

 

[Vico]

Hold on there turbo.

I have read some of the second post previously. I did not read the first.

Im sorry, but I can not wade through 30-40 pages to find your point. Thats not a fair request.

If I made an assertion about finance, or technology, I would not reference a 10Q or spec sheet, I would explain what my point or reasoning is.

Now, from the parts you did quote in your post, you are correct, I could NOT explain the difference between NFP and ABC, and why one is good, and one is bad.

For example, the points you made about ABC are as follows (my summary)

1 You teach your kids that ABC is OK. This is not an argument.
2 Its against nature, and sex is for producing children. This is not an argument. Nor does it differentiate NFP from ABC. Nature arguments are silly things for all involved.
3 States ABC is immoral. Again, completely circular, no support given.

The one paragraph about NFP is a statement so large it collapses in on itself. What is the point of that run on?

Can you, in your own words, answer the question? Honestly, new rule. No more links to dozens of pages and copy-paste of something from an allucution. Just explain, in your words, the very simple question being asked.

(I remember asking the same thing to you maybe a year ago. I don’t think you were able to verbalize your thoughts without the quotes. Maybe I am mis-remembering…)

Church Latin is tough to translate and has characteristic long sentences. You would have to read the entire document to digest it, but I see you will not.

There is nothing in there about teaching your kids, like you mention, so I can see you don’t understand it. Here is a different summary:

a. The conjugal act is primarily for the begetting of children so frustrating the conjugal act is viscious.

b. The use of the right to the conjugal act may be during infertile times since it is charitible and does not violate the marital covenent intention to not exclude children.

c. The intention of limiting the right itself in general (not the use of the right with cause) to the conjugal act to infertile times violates the marital covenant intention to not exclude children.

d. The intention of limiting the use of the right to the conjugal act to infertile times, with grave motives, is acceptable because the right of the couple is greater than that of mankind.

a refers to ABC and d to NFP, b and c are other cases one should be aware of.

 

[Em_in_FL]

We agree that the Church says each and every individual act of sex must be ordered towards life.
What you have NOT demonstrated, is how intentionally engaging in a series of acts (NFP) with the same ends is not a violation of the same principles, even if different in form.

This is a two part problem. It’s both a “means” issue and and “ends” issue.
Both have to be within moral form.
We agree on the means - each individual act of sex must be ordered towards life.
The ends issue is in regard to intent. The church teaches (and logic shows) that we have free will and have the ability to regulate procreation, but that free will must be tempered with just cause. Just like we have the free will to eat when we are hungry, we can also abuse that in gluttony… we have the free will to regulate procreation (for just reasons such as emotional, physical, and mental health, financial reasons, etc), we can also abuse that by unjustly deciding for selfish reasons to avoid having children. It’s something that should be morally weighed and prayed over.
Therefore - if someone uses ABC with correct intent (ends), but not correct form (means) it’s wrong. It’s also wrong for someone to use NFP (correct means) with selfish intent (incorrect ends).
It’s a two part problem that needs to be prayerfully evaluated.
If it’s determined, prayerfully, that avoiding children is necessary (ends is good), then the only moral means to achieve this is through total abstinence or periodic abstinence (NFP). NFP is a *gift *to marriages for the sake of reuniting and recommitting to one another during a challenging time (obviously because logically a just/grave REASON is necessary to purposefully avoid conception in the first place.)
This is all addressed in the teachings of the church that I have pointed out before and is completely logical on all fronts. I hope it answers your question.

This is why I asked you at least 3 times if these rules can be violated at a time OUTSIDE of sex. Is there any teaching on this matter? Is it mentioned? I know it doesnt fit your definition exactly. You seem to have trouble answering a question without a quote from your Church, which can be a bit frustrating. Its a common problem.

I understand I’m frustrating you and I apologize. I simply don’t understand your question. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

So, NFP, which is an entire series of morally neutral actions (classes, temps, observations, charts, talking, having sex, not having sex, etc) is created with the express purpose of allowing a couple to have sex, over long periods of time, without the worry of pregnancy. No matter how much you convince me that each of these acts is OK (which they are) it does not explain how the bad aspects of ABC do not apply simply due to each part of NFP being a moral neutral. (Having or not having sex only one part of the process, or one part of a series of acts. That is why it is important)

As I listed above, we have no reservations at all looking past the neutral aspects of my other examples. Odd that we get stuck with the example of NFP…

Hopefully I answered above… it’s a 2 part problem. Both the means and ends must be satisfied.

I don’t know if that was sarcasm or not.

For one, if they were easy to understand, you could explain them without quoting long text from HV and others, or require me to be Catholic, and just “accept” it. I mean really. All this time, have you heard me fall back on some Lutheran teaching in order to make a salient point? No. If it makes sense, I do not need to be aligned to the Pope to understand it.

And two, my example was that the expert was being purposefully obtuse in order to avoid dealing with the assertion head on. That means you are purporting to be the expert, but using technical double speak, as it were, to avoid answering the question. Maybe that was not clear…

I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic. The teaching is plain. I wasn’t purporting to be an expert… I was suggesting *turning *to the expert, which are the teachings of the church - I didn’t make that up myself.

 

[PassingThru]

Church Latin is tough to translate and has characteristic long sentences. You would have to read the entire document to digest it, but I see you will not.

There is nothing in there about teaching your kids, like you mention, so I can see you don’t understand it. Here is a different summary:

a. The conjugal act is primarily for the begetting of children so frustrating the conjugal act is viscious.

b. The use of the right to the conjugal act may be during infertile times since it is charitible and does not violate the marital covenent intention to not exclude children.

c. The intention of limiting the right itself in general (not the use of the right with cause) to the conjugal act to infertile times violates the marital covenant intention to not exclude children.

d. The intention of limiting the use of the right to the conjugal act to infertile times, with grave motives, is acceptable because the right of the couple is greater than that of mankind.

a refers to ABC and d to NFP, b and c are other cases one should be aware of.

Well, thats true. I will not read a few hours of documents in hopes of finding an explanation.

Your definitions are so far off of our discussion, I do not trust you understand the question. The chances are therefor poor that your links would cover our questions.

Here is the first point you made about ABC:

First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.

Are you saying this is not about teaching kids? Really? Now, in my haste I mistakenly said teaching kids to use ABC, where it more likely is teaching kids to not marry due to use of ABC, but that is a small difference.

So, you did quote about what you teach to children, so no, I can read. Thanks.

As to yet another list of definitions. That is fine. I dont really have a problem with them. They are definitions. Not explanations. I do not think we speak the same language…

 

[Em_in_FL]

First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.

Are you saying this is not about teaching kids? Really? Now, in my haste I mistakenly said teaching kids to use ABC, where it more likely is teaching kids to not marry due to use of ABC, but that is a small difference.

So, you did quote about what you teach to children, so no, I can read. Thanks.

As to yet another list of definitions. That is fine. I dont really have a problem with them. They are definitions. Not explanations. I do not think we speak the same language…

Actually, Vico’s right… that quote is not about “teaching” children. It’s about putting consideration toward the children. It’s a quote from Casti Connubii…

 

[silentstar]

What I don’t understand is why the Church seems to say that natural is good and artificial is bad with regards to sex and not much else. Catholics use penicillin and they avoid poison ivy although the former is artificial and the latter is natural. They live in homes with central heating, air conditioning, and running water, in the developed world, and drive cars, use electricity and etc. I truly don’t understand, not wanting to be offensive, why Catholics don’t reject technology like the Amish if they are claiming that natural only is good for sex and to regulate births, and artificial (even non-abortifacient) is bad. I always wonder, why are you driving a car and using electricity in your home, that’s not natural?

Can anyone explain this? I don’t mean to be hostile I really don’t understand. A lot of the impact of artificial substances and new technology has been to substantially redefine the boundaries of life and death, such that for example people who would not have survived an illness 100 years ago will today. I don’t know if that relates to being open to life at all. For example are you open to life if you can afford life-saving medical treatment for your child but don’t get it? What I’m saying is, issues of life and death, not just convenience or ease of living, are raised by technology and artificial substances so I don’t see why the Church singles out sexuality.

Why does religious faith permit the use of electricity and not the use of ABC?

 

[Jennifer_J]

First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.

QUOTE]

This sentence doesn’t mean what you think it means. Try this,
It essentially says that people who think contraception is okay, think that offspring are a disagreeable burden of being married and should be avoided via contraception and not via virtuous continence (abstinence).

So, no, it’s not about teaching children because it has the word offspring in it. It’s just a long sentence.

 

[Jennifer_J]

What I don’t understand is why the Church seems to say that natural is good and artificial is bad with regards to sex and not much else. Catholics use penicillin and they avoid poison ivy although the former is artificial and the latter is natural. They live in homes with central heating, air conditioning, and running water, in the developed world, and drive cars, use electricity and etc. I truly don’t understand, not wanting to be offensive, why Catholics don’t reject technology like the Amish if they are claiming that natural only is good for sex and to regulate births, and artificial (even non-abortifacient) is bad. I always wonder, why are you driving a car and using electricity in your home, that’s not natural?

Can anyone explain this? I don’t mean to be hostile I really don’t understand. A lot of the impact of artificial substances and new technology has been to substantially redefine the boundaries of life and death, such that for example people who would not have survived an illness 100 years ago will today. I don’t know if that relates to being open to life at all. For example are you open to life if you can afford life-saving medical treatment for your child but don’t get it? What I’m saying is, issues of life and death, not just convenience or ease of living, are raised by technology and artificial substances so I don’t see why the Church singles out sexuality.

Why does religious faith permit the use of electricity and not the use of ABC?

It has nothing to do with being natural in the sense you mean it. Contraception sterilizes the marital embrace. NFP or Fertility Awareness follows the normal cycles of the womans body–couples have recourse to use any part of the womans cycle to have sex so may choose to engage in the act or abstain. It’s their choice.

 

[Em_in_FL]

What I don’t understand is why the Church seems to say that natural is good and artificial is bad with regards to sex and not much else. Catholics use penicillin and they avoid poison ivy although the former is artificial and the latter is natural. They live in homes with central heating, air conditioning, and running water, in the developed world, and drive cars, use electricity and etc. I truly don’t understand, not wanting to be offensive, why Catholics don’t reject technology like the Amish if they are claiming that natural only is good for sex and to regulate births, and artificial (even non-abortifacient) is bad. I always wonder, why are you driving a car and using electricity in your home, that’s not natural?

Can anyone explain this? I don’t mean to be hostile I really don’t understand. A lot of the impact of artificial substances and new technology has been to substantially redefine the boundaries of life and death, such that for example people who would not have survived an illness 100 years ago will today. I don’t know if that relates to being open to life at all. For example are you open to life if you can afford life-saving medical treatment for your child but don’t get it? What I’m saying is, issues of life and death, not just convenience or ease of living, are raised by technology and artificial substances so I don’t see why the Church singles out sexuality.

Why does religious faith permit the use of electricity and not the use of ABC?

The church doesn’t approve of NFP because it’s “natural”… that plays no part in it’s moral analysis.
It’s approved because it doesn’t disassociate the unitive from the procreative aspects of marital intimacy. Artificial birth control does.